ADDRESS OF 

JOHN hFb'aRTLETT 

Former President United States Civil Service Commission 
now First Assistant Postmaster General 

at a Meeting of the 

United States Civil Service Reform League 


Subject: Civil Service 


in the 

Auditorium, Masonic Temple, Washington, D. C. 
Evening of April 27, 1922 











? 

» 


I 


\ 




-OlDert 


jAfi 22 1323 


\ 


} 


I 

I 


f 


/ 

^ J 


I 

. *•* 


‘i . 


. / 









•k * - •», 

.1^ 


-«* • 


T..', 

kL^' 


/ 


/ 


• ** 


2-i 


.4 




% CIVIL SERVICE 

ADDRESS BY 

JOHN H. BARTLETT 


Believing that the cause of civil service is being harmed by the misin¬ 
formation of those who profess to be its friends, knowing that my atti¬ 
tude towards civil service is being misrepresented by those whom I had 
supposed to be its friends, being wholly unwilling to yield to any “one 
jot or tittle” of interest in, and friendship for, the true cause of civil 
service when properly administered and kept within proper bounds, and 
in order that our own postal employees may not be disturbed in mind 
by false alarms, they being 60% of all under civil service, I am venturing 
on my personal account, and not as representing the administration, to 
beg my way into this meeting which was staged and advertised as op¬ 
posed to the ideas of civil service which I have advocated, and still do 
advocate. This meeting is planned by extremists of hostile minds as a 
sneer-fest against the President, and predicated on false premises. 

There may be a legitimate difference of opinion with reference to the 
extent of civil service, but I challenge any man who claims to be more 
interested in the welfare of those who serve under civil service than I 
am, or more interested that civil service shall better serve the country. 

If any man questions my sincerity in this, I challenge him to a show¬ 
down, and in this, although without authority, I am sure I may include 
the Administration, because in everything tending to upbuild civil service 
the Administration has been squarely behind it, has inaugurated reforms 
of far-reaching importance with reference to civil service which have 
never been attempted in any prior Administration, and has in no in 
stance violated any civil service law. 

In the “call” for this meeting, which was signed by William D. Poulke 
of Indiana as Acting President of the United States Civil Service Re¬ 
form League, he admitting himself to be an “Independent” in politics, 
certain alleged facts are set forth, with the conclusion that “if they are 
allowed to continue the civil service system will be undermined and 
uprooted and we shall return to the deplorable spoils method of the past.” 

In this narration of items of alarm imperiling civil service I have the 
distinction of being one. With reference to me, it says: “Mr. John H. 
Bartlett, who for a short time was Civil Service Commissioner, appointed 
by President Harding, and who is now First Assistant Postmaster Gen¬ 
eral, has made a public statement, distributed as part of the Post Office 
Department’s publicity, advocating a restriction of the merit system to 
the lower places of the service only, thus excluding those places promo¬ 
tion to which is the great incentive to efficiency among countless em¬ 
ployes of the Government.” 

This so colors my interview that the good faith of the quoter is in 
question. What I did say, which I think clearly defined my position and 
which I now stand upon, is as follows: “It is exceedingly difficult to draw 
the line where civil service should stop its attempt to reach the higher 
officials, but it would seem to be reasonably sound doctrine that in a Gov¬ 
ernment by the people when a new administration comes in with fresh 

3 


mandates from the i)e()i)le to carry out certain policies, it should have 
the riglit, in fact a perfectly free hand, to select all those hi^^her officials 
to whom must be intrusted really administrative policies and executive 
discretion. If it can not have this power, the will of the peoi)le may be 
defeated.” 

If such a sentiment as this is a cause for alarm as against civil service, 
then it is time an (alarm is sounded against those extremists who would 
throttle the will of the people, for the sake of riding their hobby too far. 

I hold no brief for any of the others against whom the ,call for this 
meeting makes senseless accusations, and on account of whom the ex¬ 
traordinary statement is made that civil service is to be “uprooted,” but 
I know positively that none of them is correctly represented in this 
notice, and that no one of them has any idea of disturbing the funda¬ 
mental principles of civil service. 

It seems a little suggestive of politics that a political “Independent” 
from Indiana, should, on the eve of a great primary in that State, attack 
the splendid Senator who is seeking a renomination. 

Mr. Foulke’s “straw’-man” document begins with this statement: “There 
appears to be a dangerous organized effort on the part of various mem¬ 
bers of Congress and others high in Government places to weaken, cripple 
and perhaps finally destroy the present competitive system in the civil 
service of our country.” 

Such an accusation smacks of politics, particularly when the accuser 
is an “Independent” and the eighb gentlemen accused as leaders of the 
organized effort, are all Republicans. I would have included at least 
one Democrat, just for “looks.” 

Assuming (to be charitable) that there is no politics in it, such an asser¬ 
tion can be accounted for only as the jealous imaginations of one who 
has become obsessed with only one idea and has fallen out of touch with 
Washington. 

This meeting, whether called on a false alarm or for political motives, 
or for the most honest motives, can not help being fruitful of good. 

We should discuss in a very friendly manner the real serious considera¬ 
tions which will tend to improve civil service and also to aid the Gov¬ 
ernment. 

However zealous we may be for civil service, the welfare of our country 
is of greatest importance. Those who can not see any evils connected 
wdth civil service are as blind as those who can see no good in it. 

I wish to invite your attention at the beginning of our discussion to 
certain very fundamental principles of government, because I am arriv¬ 
ing at my principle which guides me in my viewpoint of civil service 
by taking the broader vision of what will best serve the welfare of all 
the people; in other words, the welfare of our country. 

We must never lose sight of this one controlling, dominating fact, that 
a people’s government is greater than any individual in it, or any group 
of individuals in it. This has been exemplified in our heroic history. Only 
recently we have seen thousands of our young men and women not merely 
giving up their positions, but also their sacred lives in order that their 
country might be preserved. 

Even if we are under civil service ourselves, the braver and nobler 
thing is to ask what is best for our country, for in the long run what 
is best for our country will be best for us all. Our country is founded 
on the great principle that the will of the people shall govern. We are 
a great democracy and the machinery of our Government must 'always 

4 


be so set up and so constructed that it will mn true to the principle 
that the will of the peo])le must be carried out. 

If povjular ^?overninent means anything^, it means that there shall be 
submitted to the people at election times the great issues and the lesser 
issues concerning their government. These issues are not idle things; 
they are of tremendous importance to the Republic; indeed they are of 
vital concern to the very existence of the Nation. 

They concern the welfare of the people and of the Nation; they con¬ 
cern all of the many lesser matters and principles with which government 
deals. 

Whenever an Administration comes into power, whatever its politics, 
it is the verdict of the people that the things for which it has stood at 
the election shall be carried into effect as far as possible and as promptly 
as possible. The faithful fulfillment of these mandates of the people 
must be held up as the foremost objective of any Administration. The 
machinery of government, the instrumentalities, and even the personnel 
by means of which these mandates of the people must be carried out. 
must always be subordinated to the great tasks to be performed. 

Now right here at this point of reasoning is the beginning of the diverg¬ 
ing lines between the two schools of thought with reference to civil 
service. One school seems to go on the principle that civil service reaches 
its highest goal when it includes everyone below the President, and T 
guess a few would even include him. 

I say this advisedly, because I have heard grandiloquent civil service 
speakers proclaim the day when Cabinet Officers shall be under civil 
service. If Cabinet Officers, the same logic would also include the 
President. 

One has only to ponder upon this for a moment to set himself think¬ 
ing that it is absolutely necessary somewhere to draw the line, for if 
all the officers of the Government, from the President down through to 
the messenger boy, should come under legal civil service, all of them 
holding office for life, we would then have something worse than a 
monarchy, worse than a kingdom—it would be a monarchy and bureauc¬ 
racy combined. It would then be a machine government instead of a 
people’s government, and elections would become unnecessary. 

I know this is an extreme view and I am setting it up for your imag¬ 
ination simply to emphasize the fact that there must sometime be drawn 
a line where civil service shall end, and that that line must be drawn 
on some principle. 

I have never heard the ardent extremists on civil service ever suggest 
that any line should be drawn anywhere, and I am only pointing out to 
them that their course is tending toward a dangerous conclusion, and a 
conclusion which would defeat the fundamental principles of self-govern¬ 
ment upon which our country Avas founded. 

What has brought me into this controversy is that I have ventured to 
point out that their constant reaching for higher and higher “admin¬ 
istrative” offices, and never suggesting where they propose to stop is a 
dangerous tendency,—it is a thing which is inducing lovers of popular 
government to strike back at them; it is the thing and the only thing 
which, if pursued, will defeat civil service, for if Ave liaA^e to decide between 
civil service and popular government we cast our lot on the side of 
popular government. 

Those Avho take my vieAV believe, as I stated in my first intervieAV, 
that positions having to do directly with the formulation of “adminis¬ 
trative policies” and “executive discretion” must be Avithin the control 


of the President, whom the people have sent to Washington to carry 
out those policies. 

They must be changeable in the degree and as the people’s will is 
changeable, in order that the people’s will may be carried out. 

WTien I say the people’s will I of course mean a majority of the 
people. You will see, therefore, that I am drawing the line where civil 
service should end between those officers who have A^ery little or nothing 
to do with the formation of administrative policies and the officers which 
have to do Avith the things which vitally concern the formation of those 
policies and their execution. 

This is drawing a clean cut line on principle. If the extremists on 
civil service are drawing any line on any principles anywhere, I am not 
informed of it. 

Discussing the necessity of the high administrative offices being under 
the immediate control of the President unrestricted by civil service 
laAV in order that the will of the people may be carried out, it may be 
well to reflect for a moment upon the tendency of a bureaucracy. 

Those constituting a bureaucracy, and by that I mean such persons 
as constitute the permanent and unchanging organization of govern¬ 
ment, are inclined in the course of years to settle into a kind of mass 
formation of common interest and stereotyped methods and look with 
distrust and disfavor on the orders and policies of the new heads of 
departments who are elected by the people. In other words, they drift 
aAvay from the people too far. 

Bureaucracy is wedded to thinking that goA^ernment is a perfected 
science and that they alone possess the key to that science. 

Then again we must look at the truth as it is and understand that 
when an administration goes out and its policies have been repudiated 
by the people, if the high administrative officers of that administration 
remain in they are called upon suddenly to change their mode of think¬ 
ing, their policies, their interest and their enthusiasm to opposite poli¬ 
cies. It is not to be expected that they can be enthusiastic for one ad¬ 
ministration for one thing and with the next administration equally en¬ 
thusiastic for the opposite thing. An honest man will not want to hold 
a position where he is expected to do Avhat he does not believe in. 

Suppose war is declared-while pacifists are in the offices, for instance. 
It is not to be expected that they can be perfectly loyal to one admin¬ 
istration and its policies and principles and then in a night change to 
the same degree of loyalty to the opponents of that administration and 
the opposite principles and policies. 

In this I am referring to the high administrative officers whom any 
President must rely upon to make sure that his policies are carried into 
effect. If they are all under civil service you are asking an impossible 
thing of them. They can not change their loyalty and enthusiasm in 
that way and they ought not to do so. A man will do better service for 
his country if his heart is in the thing which he is doing. 

It is in the interests of the Avhole people that the high administrative 
officers should be selected at Avill from those who are enthusiastic for 
the particular policies and principles to Avhich the people have given 
their support. 

Suppose a drive is made on national disloyalty when socialists and 
weak men are in these positions. 

Permanency of service of high administratWe officials defeats the popu¬ 
lar will. It becomes frozen administration. Confident that they can not 
be removed, its members become defiant of the popular will and sneerful 

6 


of new administrators who come with messages direct from the people. 
They do not properly cooperate and sometimes even sulk and retard. 

One or two new men come in at the head of a great machine of 5,000 
permanent employees, the highest of whom are administrative officers 
who, during the preceding administration, have been entrusted with ad¬ 
ministrative policies and perhaps have come to believe in them. At once 
they are asked to change to carry out new policies. Some of them do 
not believe in these new policies, perhaps. The head of the department 
knows that they do not believe in them, but, nevertheless, he has to ask 
them to help him to carry them out. In fact he has to rely almost wholly 
upon them to carry them out. They are so situated and so skilled in 
governmental machinery that they can, if they choose, almost wholly 
dominate the situation. 

They can control him easier than he can control them, when he has 
so little assistance as now. 

It is more or less of an open secret that often when a new department 
head comes into office there takes place a sort of undefinable contest 
to determine whether his ideas shall be put into effect or whether the 
high administrative officers and cunning men of that department will 
control him. 

My idea is that such a man coming with fresh instructions from the 
people, being placed in charge of thousands of organized public servants, 
needs a larger number of immediate associates of high administrative 
qualities to assist him, and to see to it that his policies and ideas are 
carried out by that great organization. 

Such a new head of a great organization, all of whose members are 
protected by civil service, finds himself with very ineffective power of 
discipline over the organization because all his subordinates, including 
the appointment officers, are under civil service and have a mutual 
interest to stand together as against his discipline, and they sometimes do. 

It does not matter what political party the civil service employee be¬ 
longs to (or what belief he has) if he is not to be entrusted with high 
administrative authority. If such a head feels that he is being circum¬ 
vented and undertakes to make removals, for the most righteous purpose, 
he encounters an organized attack, such a one as lies, I fear, behind this 
meeting here tonight. 

If he finds his plans blocked at every turn by advice that “it is inex¬ 
pedient,” by unreasonable delays, and by indifference, he is helpless. 
He simply must have a larger number of administrative men around 
him of his own selection and in whom he has implicit confidence to see 
to it that nothing is “put over on him.” 

As it is, he finds himself working up hill all the time. His only remedy, 
his only avenue of peace, is to fall into the same old way of doing it 
that it has been done for thirty years and yet he has been sent there 
to do certain new things which the public demand of him. 

If he tries to cut some red tape which the people want cut, he finds no 
one in all his organization who knows how to use the scissors to do it. 
Red tape has become an exact science and those who are skilled in that 
science do not propose to give up their means of livelihood. 

There is no way to prefer charges against such subordinates; they may 
perhaps be doing nothing that can be detected and set forth as a ground 
for charges. They simply do not believe in the things which the new 
head believes in and they simply do not know how to carry out such 
policies. 


It is like a ^i:reat contractor wlio has l)een building wood houses for 
years and lias built up an organization of that kind. He finally decides 
that he will begin building brick and stone houses; he calls his superin¬ 
tendents together and they tell him it can not be done. They tell him 
he will fail if he does it. They predict all manner of evil. He finally 
calls in a half dozen brick and stone superintendents that he has picked 
up from other sources and asks their opinion. They tell him it is the 
most up-to-date proiiosition and that there is big money in it. What does 
he do? What ought he to do? Should he keej) the superintendents who 
say it can’t be done, or should he get a new set of .superintendents who 
know they can do it? 

I fear many of us do not realize how rapidly our country has grown 
and how much business there is to do. It is not the same Washington 
that it was in the days of Cleveland, Mr. Foulke. The President himself 
can consider only the very broadest policies in the broadest way. His 
C^abinet Officers and independent heads are so jammed with work and 
ap])ointments that they are physically able to consider their vital admin¬ 
istrative ])roblems only in a very general way. 

They, in turn, must delegate administrative discretion and execution 
to those immediately under them, and again tlie delegation must go on 
for several steps. In fact, the real vital matters of administration in 
most cases have to be studied out and formulated by those a few steps 
removed from even a Cabinet Officer. 

The Cabinet Officer needs more than the one or two non-civil service 
assistants which he now has. He needs several who believe as he does, 
who believe in him, and who are enthusiastic for his success, and these 
can not well be under civil service because no man can serve two masters. 

I do not say that any individual now under civil service in Wash 
ington or elsewhere should necessarily lose his civil service status by 
my theory. I believe in justice to all employees. But whatever be the 
rearrangement necessai’y to carry these principles into effect, it should 
be done. It does not involve greater expense to the Government, because 
I believe a Cabinet Officer or a head of any other department, if allowed 
to surround himself as I have stated, would be able to save all along 
down the line where he is not now able to do so. 

It is argued that the higher up the positions under civil service go, 
the greater the inducement not only to enter the service but to con¬ 
tinue 'in the service. There is some force in this argument and it is 
not inconsistent with my ideas. 

If civil service stopped where administrative officers began, there would 
be no reason Avhy a Cabinet Officer could not select any one under him 
in civil service to fill any of his administrative positions, provided he 
could find such a person whom he desired. He would naturally look OA^er 
his organization to see if he could find such a person. In case he found 
such an employee Avhom he could promote to a high administrative posi¬ 
tion not under civil service, there should be some provision Avhereby such 
employee Avould retain his civil service status and be permitted to go 
back to some civil .service position in case some other Cabinet Officer 
in some other Admini.stration with neAv policies did not feel that he could 
l)est seiwe the demand of tliose neAv policies. 

This Avould leave every inducement for distinguished service in order 
tliat one might be selected for the high admini.strative positions. The 
only difference is it Avould not compel a Cabinet Officer by civil service 
seniority to take someone against his judgment. In other Avords, it 
would permit an Administration to select its high administratiA^e officers 

S 


from a hundred millions of ])eo])le rather than to compel it hy law to 
select from only a half million i)eople who are under civil service. 

When the i)eople vote a change in Administration, they mean a change 
in “Administration,” not simply a change in the President. An Admin¬ 
istration must embrace the high administrative officers. 

Moreover, everyone knows that new blood brought into any great 
business is helpful, that without the ability to bring in new blood and 
new talent from time to time any great business will gradually contract, 
grow narrow, and become inetficient. So will a government. 

The extreme civil service view would not T)ermit a President to bring 
to Washington any new blood. He would come with his trunk and 
platform, and the organization prepared for him by civil service would 
tell him what to do, and wreck his platform if they chose to do so. 

The whole difference between my ideas and those of the civil service 
extremists, as I understand it, is that they claim that the only officials 
who should be called “administrative officers,” and who should not be 
under civil service, are Cabinet Officers, and perhaps one or two assist¬ 
ants, and some of the extremists do not even concede this; while I be¬ 
lieve that these are not enough, as our Government has at length grown 
and developed, to make certain that the President’s policies are carried 
out, and to discipline and reform the great body of civil service em¬ 
ployes under him. 

I believe it can be shown that there are many civil service employees, 
through themselves or their friends, who are adding fuel to this fire 
now calculated to attack this Administration. Some of the present em¬ 
ployees of the Government are so partisan and so friendly to the last 
Administration that they do not want this Administration to be a success. 

I refer to this merely to illustrate the point that a President, in order 
to succeed, must be surrounded by more enthusiastic believers in him 
and in his policies. 

The position of Postmaster General Work is attacked in the call for 
this meeting, and unjustly so. The Committee of Three representing 
this League who called upon him consisted of ]Mr. Poulke, who claims 
to be independent in politics, and another gentleman who said frankly 
that he was a Democrat, and a third gentleman who did not volunteer 
his politics. While Mr. Poulke is acting President, I heard Mr. Dana, 
the President of the League, sharply criticize President Harding in a 
speech in Detroit even last autumn, and 1 am told he is also a Democrat. 

There is absolutely no cause for alaim on the part of the great body 
of civil service workers who do their woi'k well, none whatever. It is 
unfair and unkind to them to advertise this bogy scare which has no 
foundation in fact. The wheels of government would be absolutely 
clogged without a rational civil service law and a civil service commis¬ 
sion. It is a necessity of government. 

This present alarm is an apparition, a phantom, a scare put up in 
order that a few now under civil service and who ought to be put out, may 
hide behind it. It is the villain’s plea who, dodging behind his wife, 
cries out, “Don’t strike a woman.” 

Now we should all be fair with our President. I ought to tell you 
how very ready he has been to back up the Civil Service Commission and 
encourage, it in taking many advance steps during the past year. As 
head of the Civil Service Commission I had every reason to know of the 
sympathetic attitude of the President towards civil service. 

One of the most important and far-reaching movements in civil service 
in its history has been to make it possible to rate applicants for civil 

9 


service i)ositions on something “plus” scholarship. The Commission 
advocated the policy of investigating the character and personal fitness 
of applicants and to average their rating in these things in with their 
scholastic ratings in order that a more practical and businesslike result 
might be obtained. 

The President not only enthusiastically supported us in this, but by a 
special message recommended that Congress appropriate $40,000 in order 
that this work might be begun, and such appropriation has been made. 
It is the first step of its kind in the history of the country. It is a 
part of the program to put more business into the Government. 

In addition to this, there has been going on for some time in the council 
of civil service, in cooperation with the Bureau of the Budget, a study 
of the personnel problem of the Government looking to a Personnel 
Board and better personnel management. The President has interested 
himself in this. 

For the first time in the entire history of the country, we now have 
inaugurated a system of welfare work aanong the employees. This was 
begun in the Post Office Department, where more than one-half of the 
Federal civil service employees may be found, and Mr. Dennison, a $50,000 
man working for practically nothing, was induced by the President and 
Postmaster General Hays to come here to inaugurate this great work. 
He has already organized some 500 welfare councils in the country and 
is gradually establishing better working conditions, better health condi¬ 
tions, and in short, humanizing the Postal System. 

There are still to be accomplished a vast number and a vast amount 
of tasks in order that the civil service of the Government may be per¬ 
fected and the workers of the Government placed on a better footing. 
There are many things to be corrected; there are many injustices going 
on constantly. There are many reforms within the service itself in the 
handling of the employees and in doing justice to them which would be 
a great advance step and highly beneficial to the Government. There is 
now a lack of personnel correlation between the different departments. 
There is a lack of system. There is no uniformity of method in which 
the personnel is handled and treated. 

There is need of a work which should call for a master personnel man 
who is able to do for the personnel of the Government in the line of 
coordinating and correlating a task similar to that done by General 
Dawes in relation to purchases and finances. 

Personal spites, personal affections, and petty jealousies among the 
personnel of the Government work more harm and injustice to the 
ordinary civil service man and woman than politics has ever done. 
Along these lines lie a great work of correction. If an appointment 
officer “gets down” on a worker he is down forever. 

These problems of internal upbuilding in the civil service system are 
the most pressing and most important of all. 

I must say that since I have been associated with civil service I have 
seen very little interest on the part of the League in these very im¬ 
portant questions. They have seemed to me to be interested almost 
wholly in grasping every possible office and putting it under civil service. 

They have been so eager to get higher and higher officials under the 
cover of civil service that I have assumed they have no idea of stopping 
short of the President. I have certainly expected some of them to advo¬ 
cate covering Senators, Judges and Congressmen. 

It was said in the call for this meeting that I favored restricting civil 

10 


service to tlie lower places of the service, presumably meaning the low 
l)aid employees. 

This is not my position because I believe that everyone from the 
President down is rather poorly paid and if I adopted that as my position 
I would have everyone under civil service, which is the very thing 
against which I contend. There are officials now under civil service who 
are paid $6,000 per year, while assistants to Cabinet Officers, including 
myself, being administrative officers not under civil seiwice, are paid 
only $5,000 per year. I fail to see wliat inducement to stay in the 
service it would be to peimit one of these $6,000 men to accept my 
position at $5,000. 

But to be sure that I be not misunderstood, I again say that the line 
between civil service and administrative officials should not be drawn 
on a salary basis but on the principle which I have set forth. 

Perhaps I should say in answer to an implied, if not a direct charge 
to the contrary, that during the eight months that I w^as with the 
Civil Service Commission neither the President nor any Cabinet Officer 
violated any civil service law. 

When the preceding administration of the Post Office Department 
came into power all of the fourth-class post offices and postmasters of 
the country, being the small post offices, were under civil service. They 
had been placed under civil service by preceding Presidents and so 
far as appears were generally doing their work acceptably. The Post 
Office Department was certainly in as good condition at the beginning 
of the preceding administration as at the end. 

Let me call attention to what happened, merely to offset the impres¬ 
sion -which certain persons are trying to make upon the country that 
this administration is against the civil service. President Wilson coming 
into office, with the^se 38,000 post offices and postmasters under civil 
seiwice, forthwith by executive order and at one fell swoop, ordered all 
these i)ostmasters removed from civil service and ordered the Civil Service 
Commission to hold examinations in all of the 38,000 places to fill the 
vacancies. This was done and as a result about 14,000 of the civil service 
])ostmasters, who were then doing good work, lost their jobs and 14,000 
Democrats took their places. 

This administration thus far has allowed them to remain and the injus¬ 
tice is still uncorrected. It would seem to have been fair that, if on these 
examinations, a postmaster who was already under civil service and 
serving the country faithfully, passed the examination as “No. 1,” he 
should be given the office, but this was not the case. 

It does not appear what Mr. Foulke did at that time by way of protest. 

It should be needless to state that the first, second and third class 
postmasters are not under civil service now’ and never have been. They 
have never acquired a civil service status. Such executive orders as 
have been made with reference to them have been merely a delegation by 
the President to the Civil Service Commission of the duty of examining 
them and making up a list for the President to select from. 

The President is not even obliged to select from these lists when they 
are thus made up. The pow’er of appointing these Presidential post¬ 
masters is with the President and the Senate. He has the right to change 
this order any minute he chooses. It is merely a means of selection. To 
speak of General Work’s alleged desire to vacate the present executive 
order w’ith reference to Presidential postmasters as tending to under¬ 
mine the civil service system, is illogical and irrelevant. They are not 
a part of the civil service system at all. 

11 


Now it is urged against iny contention that ’a President’s hands are 
too much tied by having the high administrative positions placed under 
civil service, that the President, even now, when they are under civil 
service, has the poAver to take them out from under civil service when¬ 
ever he desires. 

This is technically true to a large extent, but it is not a practical 
proposition. The President can not be put in a position of having to be 
called upon every time a Cabinet Officer finds himself improperly ham- 
l)ered and interfered Avith by high administrative officers being under 
civil service. The practical operation heads up Avith the Cabinet Officer 
and he does not have the poAver to remoA-e positions from civil service 
by executive order. 

What I contend for is a complete and definite understanding Avhich 
shall be adopted and established as a policy, accepted by all, that certain 
Avell defined administrative offices ought not to be and shall not be under 
civil seiwice. This Avould put a stop to the contest. It may inA’olve a 
change in names of seA^eral positions and some neAV positions. 

Since Cabinet Officers do not haA^e this poAV'er to remove positions 
from civil service and since the President can not be troubled Avith 
a multiplicity of details iiiA’olA^ed in getting him to exercise his poAver, it 
folloAA's as a practical matter that the President’s policies and the Cabinet 
Officer’s policies are in unsympathetic hands. 

A.S I said before, the President himself can not give the time to these 
problems and should not be asked to do so, and, therefore, a system 
should be devised Avhich does not require him to do so. He has the legal 
right, as he did in the case of the Bureau of Engraving and Printing, to 
remoA’^e offices and officers from ci\ul serAuce AAdien he deems it for the 
public good. He did not then, and has not in his administration, violated 
a single civil service laAA'. He can laAA’fully put in or take out a person 
from civil service AA'ithout giving any reasons therefor if he deems it 
for the public good. He is not obliged to give the notice to discharged 
employees required of all other removing officers, because he is given 
the right under the fundamental civil service law to make any exceptions 
to that laAV which he sees fit. Not giving specific reasons is his right 
by this power of exception. 

I am sv)eaking only of the laAV and the President’s poAver in a general 
Avay. I have no knoAvledge of the situation in the particular case in the 
Bureau of Engraving and Printing and am only ansAvering the charges 
that he has violated the law. 

In conclusion I urge all friends of civil service to get behind the move¬ 
ment to perfect the personnel system of the Government in such a 
manner as .shall be most just and satisfactory to the employees and at 
the same time mos|: efficient and beneficial to the GoAwnment and help 
build up and perfect tlie Avork of the Civil vSeiwice Commission as the 
great acting personnel agency of the GoA^ernment. The excellent com- 
inission is Avell organized Avith a skilled personnel. 

And particularly I urge the adoption of a policy Avherein any adminis¬ 
tration Avithout the restraint or restriction of any ciAul service laAV may 
bring to the aid of its policies from all the people including the civil 
seiwice people, all those higher officials Avho are directly concerned in 
the formulation of administratiA^e policies and essential to insure that 
those i)olicies be carried into effect, because it is only in this Avay that 
the expressed aauII of the people as to policies and issues Avill be most 
certain of fulfillment. 


12 


